Kingpin said -

To support an argument in court, in an essay, in a conversation you need

evidence FROM THE TEXT,

its the fundamental basis of literary criticism and interpretation.

I don't think anybody is arguing that B7 was created with the deliberate intention to imply that the main male characters were sexually involved with each other: so nobody is looking for or finding evidence to that effect. That would be analogous to your Schindler's List example.

What's happening is that some people (mainly women) enjoy writing erotica about men having relations with each other. They prefer that erotica to be grounded to some extent in characterisations that have existence outside of the particular piece of erotic writing itself. Perhaps for two contrasting reasons

- women (it appears) find stuff more erotic when it has some back-story and characterisation - as fans they want to explore the characters they like, and do so through eroticisation

In this case they are using B7 as that grounding.

In which case most of the argument on both sides is just tilting at windmills. What is it an argument about? Saying you can't enjoy the stories? Clearly not. Saying that you must enjoy the stories? Clearly not. Saying the erotic subtext must be read into the series? Clearly not (as some people do not do so). Saying the subtext can not be read into the series? Clearly not (as someone is in fact doing so).

It's an absolute non-issue. The one area that it is sensible to disagree about is 'how far from what we see on the screen do we have to go, to posit such and such a relationship'. We may have to imagine the relationship was 'hidden from the camera'. Or we have to suggest it was theoretically possible, and would have happened in such-and-such circumstances. But mainly I'd say those questions were of interest to writers and readers who already want to read that type of story, and everyone else can ignore them, unless they want to play too.

Alison